There's a lively discussion of the "Your Move" E-mails over on the Burgh Report.
Here's what I posted there in answer to some readers' questions about the authenticity of the e-mails and the positions of various council members.
The e-mails were not obtained from anyone who hacked into the city's or the Penguins' servers; that is to say, they came from a participant in the electronic conversation. The mayor's chief of staff confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails when I reviewed their contents with him by phone. That said, confirming that the e-mails were authentic doesn't mean that any one or all of the authors' e-mails are gospel. The authors are speaking their understanding of the facts, the law and of other parties' positions. They be correct or incorrect in their understanding on any given point.
When I interviewed Councilman Dowd on Wednesday, he told me that the first he heard about the banners was in a phone call from the mayor's chief of staff around eight Friday night, asking if he would support them. Dowd told me his response was to request more information--that he wasn't able to take a position either way without learning more. Dowd's quote didn't make it into the news that day because the focus was on trying to learn who was opposed, not who was neutral.
On that same Wednesday:
Councilman Kraus said that he had not taken a position on the banners and
Councilman Burgess said he was in support of finding a way to put them up.
Also on Wednesday:
Councilman Motznik said he supported putting up the banners, but insisted the mayor's office had never informed him of the proposal.
Councilman Deasy said he was in support of the banners.
I did not have the opportunity to ask Councilwomen Harris or Payne their positions.
In response to the comment by Anonymous 05/24/08 12:49 pm on the Burgh Report:
I never heard Mayor Ravenstahl say that "there was only one councilman who had issues".
On Wednesday said there were "a couple". On that same day, Councilmen Shields and Peduto said they were not opposed to putting the banners, and said they told the administration they would cooperate in supporting a way to do so legally.
On Thursday, the Mayor reaffirmed his claim that there were council members opposed to putting up the banners. He also said that he believed the public remarks by the council members on Wednesday showed that they were opposed. In that Thursday interview, for the first time I heard the mayor say that he wanted support from council to have been "unanimous". Also, for the first time he said that council would have had to repeal the moratorium on new billboards in Pittsburgh. A repeal of the moratorium was not discussed in the e-mails.
Moments later, other reporters and I sought responses from Shields and Peduto. They reaffirmed they hadn't opposed putting up the banners--and said they had recommended ways to do so in a meeting late Monday afternoon with members of the Ravenstahl administration.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
"Your Move" E-Mails Chatter
Friday, May 23, 2008
Penguins Banners Bonus Feature
Simulation by WTAE Channel 4 Action News ArtistClick here for the "Penguins Banners? The 'Your Move' E-Mails" post.
If you'd like to read the entire sequence of e-mails on which the story is based, click the "Read More..." link below.
I've removed the e-mail addresses of participants and added a few annotations. The following sequence was reconstructed from many separate e-mail exchanges, then placed in chronological order. The source material was in the reverse-order that's common in ongoing e-mail conversations. Typos from the e-mails have been left as is. Some of those taking part were apparently thumb-typing on their BlackBerries, which tends to result in more typing errors.
Again, if you're interested, click the "Read More..." link in the left hand corner, below.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Penguins Banners? The "Your Move" E-Mails
E-mails between the Mayor's Chief of Staff, The President of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and the President of City Council shed new light on the banners controversy.
Here's a link to video of my Channel 4 Action News report. The following is an expanded version of the TV story.
With Reebok logos written large, these are the 85 by 40 foot Penguins banners that would have been.
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is again blaming council, saying opposition there is to blame for the plan falling through:
"Either it was something that they were going to approve or they weren't. To me it was that cut and dry, because of the time associated with it. And we couldn't build that consensus, so it wasn't submitted."
Doug Shields, Council President responds:
"Mr. Peduto and I gave them like three different ways that they would probably get passage of it and that we would support. We made that clear."
Channel 4 Action News artists show here, how the banners could have looked on Fifth Avenue Place, spanning seven stories.
E-mails obtained by Channel 4 Action News show city bureaucrats, not City Council raising red flags about the banners. The following messages were back of a lengthy exchange running from 2 PM to after 10:00 PM last Friday.
The Mayor's Zoning Administrator, Susan Tymoczko:
"Given the amount of advertising copy included, I cannot say that these are approvable".
The Mayor's Planning Director Noor Ismail:
"This has advertising on it and (new) advertising signs are prohibited downtown."
After that, Penguins President David Morehouse e-mailed the mayor's office:
"Just heard from Reebok and they said they are pulling out...
The substantial investment from them is not worth it without their copy."
Morehouse also wrote:
"This is a shame and I can't believe we can't make this work. I am very frustrated with this process."
Shields e-mailed:
"We give permits for all sorts of banners ... We can amend to allow for our sports teams."
Concerning City Council, the mayor's own Chief of Staff Yarone Zober e-mailed at 10 PM Friday:
"It's a go from Council Prez Shields He will confirm by email in the next ten minutes. Good work, everyone."".
Shields e-mailed back:
"To confirm, Mr. Zober. Yes, we will find a way."
At 9:13 AM Tuesday, after news media began asking questions, Zober e-mailed to Penguins:
"We're going to pull the plug on the banner efforts. Even talking to council has caused ... stories."
Zober then e-mailed Council:
"This could have been fun, but not worth it on a fast track with a sensitive issue."
Council Finance Chair Bill Peduto says:
"The Penguins found out that they didn't have Reebok's support in order to produce the banners. So blaming this on council is suspicious at best."
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
My "Something to Be Desired" Cameo
Thanks to Justin Kownacki for the invitation to tape a seconds-long guest appearance for his web series, "Something to Be Desired".
He's the talented creator, writer, and director of this online sitcom shot and set here in Pittsburgh. Justin's assembled a clever, creative ensemble and they've been doing the show for five seasons now. This year, "Something to Be Desired" was a Best Series finalist for The Yahoo! Video Awards.
My STDB doppelganger makes a sudden appearance in the final minutes of the latest episode.
Here are links to Post-Gazette and Trib articles about Kownacki and his show:
PG: Web of desire: Weekly online sitcom/soap examines lives of young adults in Pittsburgh
Trib: The link: Justin Kownacki
One caution for readers and viewers, as Adrian McCoy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette noted, "STBD is for mature viewers -- there are adult situations, content and explicit language."
Here are two links:
"What is Something to Be Desired?"...
...and the latest episode in which I fleetingly appear, "The Celebration".
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
SLAPP?
Bill Peduto claims that the lawsuit Lamar Advertising filed against him and his fellow Councilmen Shields, Burgess, Kraus, and Dowd was a SLAPP. He seems to suggest the city law department opinion about their legal expenses has the sting of a SLAPP, too.
What's a SLAPP?
I didn't recall the term, but apparently SLAPPs have a long and contentious history.
SLAPP stands for "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Wikipedia defines it as:
"a form of litigation frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition."
California passed a law to protect against SLAPPs. So have more than two dozen other states. That includes Pennsylvania, though our state's has been described as a "significantly weakened version passed into law in 2000." It was designed to deal only with environmental law cases, and reportedly was passed "after a coal baron sued an elderly constituent for filing a complaint with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection when her home suffered acid mine-water damage."
That's from this article in Philly area newspaper that quotes a critic complaining that a court ruling created "an unduly narrow interpretation that destroys any value or purpose of the statute."
It seems that SLAPPs are an international phenomenon. Here' s a YouTube video report by CUTV. Concordia University Television is Canada's oldest student-run television station. I'm linking to it here for some interesting background. As they say on the DVD extras, this is for entertainment purposes only, and does not necessarily reflect the views, etc.
Here are some PG articles in which the term "SLAPP" appears.
Suit cites neighbors' 'frivolous objections' to townhouse plan
The dash to SLAPP is chilling
Judge drops neighbors from townhouse lawsuit
Meanwhile, I ran into Lamar Advertising's attorney Sam Kamin as I was leaving the City County Building after Tuesday's council meeting. He told me he had just finished dictating the court filing to withdraw Lamar's lawsuit against the city council members, as agreed to in the arrangement signed before the zoning board.
A check of the county court's website shows that the lawsuit has now been "Discontinued without Prejudice".
What the significance there is (if any) of the lawsuit being discontinued "without prejudice" in this case, I do not know.Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Chessboards & Mushroom Clouds At City Hall
It's hard to choose which of the two pictures above is the best to foreshadow the ongoing escalation in exchanges between the Ravenstahl administration and City Council.
Is this story about something more than a simple snit over paying a legal bill? Four Council members are being told that what began with their challenging that controversial electronic billboard could end with their forced removal from office.
One gets the sense that there are powerful and volatile combinations in play beyond the view of the news of the day.
Check out this blog post about where this legal clash involving Lamar Advertising, City Council, and the Ravenstahl administration was heading. That showdown was asking for depositions and subpoenas of the Mayor, Chief of Staff Yarone Zober, and URA Executive Director Pat Ford on one side, and of five City Council members and their staffers on the other.
Meanwhile, Lamar Advertising's lawsuit against the four City Council members still has not been formally withdrawn...(as of this blog post early Tuesday morning). Doing so was part of the settlement negotiated between attorneys for Lamar, City Solicitor George Specter, and Councilman Patrick Dowd's privately hired attorneys.
When I asked Lamar Advertising's attorney Sam Kamin about this last week, he told me initially that the lawsuit was moot. When I asked him how long it could sit there -- dormant but not officially withdrawn -- before it expired, he answered in terms of years. He assured me there was "nothing nefarious " involved, then closed by saying that in response to my inquiry he intended to formally withdraw the lawsuit as Lamar Advertising had agreed to do in its signed settlement before the Zoning Board.
Note, by the way: the lawsuit by Lamar advertising against Shields, Peduto, Kraus, and Burgess says clearly that those four were (are?) each being sued as members of City Council. Only Patrick Dowd was also being sued as an individual. Among other things, the suit alleges that they violated the Sunshine Act. That's something that a public official can be accused of doing, but not a private citizen.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
If Wecht Stands Trial Again, Judge Schwab Intends to Preside
This past week, a federal appeals court put a second trial for former coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht on hold. The panel of judges will decide if a second trial should be forbidden on the basis of double jeopardy. That overshadowed another development: Judge Arthur Schwab's refusal of the latest defense call to remove himself from the case, should it go forward.
Here are some highlights from Judge Schwab's 33 page opinion.
"...The Court denies defendant’s Renewed Motion for Recusal because a reasonable observer, aware of all of the facts and circumstances of record, could not find an appearance of partiality or bias..."
"...There is nothing about this Court’s fair and impartial rulings and statements throughout these proceedings that present, to any reasonable observer who knows all of the facts and circumstances of record, any degree of favoritism or antagonism -- let alone the sort of “deep-seated” or “high degree” of favoritism or antagonism that might qualify as one of the rare exceptions to the general rule..."
"...It is crucial to the proper functioning of our justice system for judges to remain upright in face of political and media clamour that occasionally accompanies high profile cases, and resist the temptation to “capitulate,” so as not to encourage such extraneous pressure on judges in the future..."
"...Defendant’s Brief... attaches an affidavit executed by [dismissed juror] Stanley Albright... which defendant contends contradicts this Court’s statement in open court...that he had requested to be excused. This convoluted ground for recusal suggests, frankly, that this Court lied about Mr. Albright’s condition when it discharged him...for the purpose of securing an advantage for the government..."
"...some additional observations are appropriate in order to correct a few of defendant’s distortions of the record and dispel his untenable claims that this Court was less than accurate about the reasons it discharged Stanley Albright and that the Court was attempting to help the government obtain a conviction by Mr. Albright’s discharge."
"First, this Court has never spoken with Mr. Albright. All communications with the Court were through the Court’s bailiffs on April 2 and 3, 2008, and the Court’s statements in open court were accurately based on what Mr. Albright told one of the bailiffs the morning of April 3rd (as he later confirmed to the other bailiff)..."
"...Second, Mr. Albright’s April 17th affidavit is not materially different from the Court’s explanation in open court, or the letter he faxed to the Court later on April 3rd...."
"...Third, there is nothing on the record that indicates which way Mr. Albright might have been leaning before the Court discharged him, and he does not disclose his vote on any count ofthe indictment in his affidavit..."
"...The Court also shares Mr. Albright’s regret that he was unable to remain with the jury through its final day of service, when the Court declared a mistrial and discharged the jury on April 8, 2008. However, there is no doubt on the record before the Court, including Mr. Albright’s affidavit of April 17th, that he was unavailable for jury deliberations on April 2nd and 3rd, and that the Court exercised sound discretion in discharging him for good cause and directing the jury to continue..."
"...One knowing all of the facts of record could not possibly infer that this Court “wielded the club of contempt” when it directly issued a much needed (and probably overdue) reminder to counsel for both parties to conduct themselves professionally, as Officers of the Court, so as to protect the integrity of the jury pool from the possibility of contamination by the media maelstrom. Cases and controversies before a federal district or appellate court must not be adjudicated in the court of public opinion..."
"...the transcript of the proceedings -- will find some rulings that favor the government, and some that favor defendant. The record also shows that many significant rulings on motions and on disputes as to jury instructions favored the defendant, and that the unhurried, non-coercive jury deliberations were beneficial to him as well."
"...The record contains no hint of bias, prejudice or ill-will toward the defendant or his attorneys. Despite defendant’s continued threats and filings of recusal motions and his abuse of the writ of mandamus, this Court will, as it always has done, faithfully endeavor to follow its constitutional obligations and continue to provide defendant with a fair trial before an impartial jury of his peers..."
"...Defendant has every right to appeal any and all of the rulings and decisions of this Court in the event of an adverse jury verdict upon retrial, at the proper time... Defendant has no right, however, to disrupt ongoing criminal proceedings by engaging in repeated, frivolous attempts to judge-shop by removing the presiding District Judge based solely on defendant’s disagreement with some of the Court’s rulings..."
"...For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Renewed Motion for Recusal is DENIED."
"SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2008.
s/ Arthur J. SchwabArthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge "
Monday, May 5, 2008
Reverend Rossi Goes Hollywood
You'll find a link to my Channel 4 Action News report here.
It's about the DVD directed by and starring Reverend Richard Rossi, whose jury deadlocked and did not convict him of attempting to murder his wife in Butler County back in 1994. Rossi later entered a "no contest" plea to a count of aggravated assault in the case, and served a few months in jail.
You can see the trailer for his movie here...
...and his YouTube reel of acting highlights here.
Credit to Steve Levin of the PG for doing the story about Rossi in Sunday's paper; I had spotted the DVD on the shelf at BlockBuster, but not realized it was made by Rossi.
The line in the PG story that stuck in my mind was something also mentioned on the DVD box. The PG reported:
"...It was voted one of the top guerrilla films of all time ..."
It made me want to do some googling to learn more. With the exception of this news release, the only references you'll find on the internet to this organization are in blurbs praising Rossi's movie:
Auteur independent filmmaker Richard Rossi won the top spot on the International Guerrilla Film Association's list of 100 Greatest guerrilla films for his low budget movie "Aimee Semple McPherson," a biopic about a fabled female evangelist in the Roaring Twenties. The results were announced yesterday at the annual IGFA party in New York.The top five runnerups in order were "Eraserhead," a 1978 David Lynch film, "Night of the Living Dead" (George Romero's horror classic shot in 1968 for $68,000.00), Kevin Smith's $28,000.00 first feature (1994)"Clerks," "400 Blows," a French New Wave film directed by Francois Truffaut in 1959, and "El Mariachi," a 1993 Robert Rodriguez film shot for $7000.00...
...Richard Rossi shot his critically acclaimed movie on a $300.00 consumer camcorder, used clamp-on construction lights purchased at Home Depot for $48.00, and made "Aimee Semple McPherson" under a special Screen Actor's Guild experimental contract for films with budgets under $75,000.00
I can't find the "International Guerrilla Film Association". I did find three groups with similar names.
• International Guerrilla Video Festival: its official never heard of Rossi or his movie.
• International Guerrilla Film Database: its official never heard of the Sister Aimee movie or writer/director Rossi, either.
• There is an IGFA: it's the International Game Fish Association.
I called the contact number on the news release about the IGFA Top 100. The recording answers for Richard Rossi's production company.
If anyone can provide me with contact information for the International Guerrilla Film Assocation, I'll check it out and mention it here.
In the comments section at Topix, A person named Gina Morton describes seeing this remarkable moment of live theater involving Rossi:
I saw Richard Rossi, the director, writer, and actor in this film portray Elmer Gantry on stage at the Stella Adler Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard a couple years back, and in Long Beach. An amazing performance. The executor of the Richard Brooks estate was in attendance and came up on stage and gave Richard Rossi the Oscar from the 1960 "Elmer Gantry" film and said Richard Brooks would be proud. One of the best nights of theatre in LA ever.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Pat Ford Ethics Review & Paid Leave Update
Here's a link to my Channel 4 Action News story updating URA Executive Director Pat Ford's situation.
The State Ethics Commission is not permitted to even acknowledge the existence of any review of his case. The agency's head of investigations did, however, outline for me the time frames set for all probes under Pennsylvania's ethics law.
The dollar figures cited in my report were reached by doing the simple math. Divide Ford's $115,000 salary by twelve to establish a monthly value. Next, multiply that value by the number of months that can be involved at each step of any preliminary inquiry or full ethics investigation.
The mayor's office did not respond to my request for comment from Mayor Ravenstahl and Chief of Staff Yarone Zober, who serves as chairman of the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Posts
